Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 10 JANUARY 2007
PROFESSOR KEITH
MASON, PROFESSOR
RICHARD HOLDAWAY
AND AIR
VICE-MARSHAL
CHRIS MORAN
Q180 Dr Iddon: From what I have heard
this morning it sounds as if the present focus is on commercial
exploitation of space research. Do you think the balance should
be shifted a little in terms of exploration and discovery?
Professor Mason: I think they
go hand-in-hand. As you chart new frontiers, opportunities for
commercial exploitation arise either directly or indirectly. That
is what history tells us, and I think you can see that in the
history of our space activity. One has to recognise that the space
arena has always been led by scientific endeavour and it is a
very challenging environment to operate. It is one which galvanises
bright people into thinking about new ideas and generating things
which can then be translated into commercial opportunities. Perhaps
if there was one—at least within government circles—mistake
that was made in the past it was to see those two things as separate
activities: science on the one hand, and commercial exploitation
as being something that can stand on its own remit. In fact, the
links are so strong you have to see them hand-in-hand, and one
leads to the other.
Q181 Chairman: Richard, would you
comment on that, please?
Professor Holdaway: Yes. You are
asking about the next phase of the UK space strategy. Of course,
we live in a space-enabled economy. You mentioned earlier on that
this broadcast is being carried around the world, and it is being
carried around the world through satellite and through satellite
technology. Actually, satellite technology affects pretty much
every member of the population, whether it is through live TV
broadcasts, whether it is through having information on disaster
monitoring or underpinning the information on climate change.
Even the whole banking system in this country now depends pretty
much on that technology. However, the food chain that leads to
that technology is research, then conceptual design, then the
development of the technology and then the spacecraft, and it
is the early stages of that where we have a real funding crisis
in this country. That is the underpinning idea behind the joint
science space technology programme, which is a core part of the
Comprehensive Spending Review.
Q182 Dr Iddon: Do you think the Space
Centre has the ability to scan the horizon—where are we
going to be in 50 years' time? The Americans are already planning
staging posts on the cold side of Mars to explore the rest of
space. Are we thinking in those directions?
Professor Mason: We could do more
in that, and that comes back to my ambition agenda. I think BNSC
does an excellent job with very limited resources, but in the
partnership as a whole I think we need a mechanism of doing that
horizon scanning, and horizon scanning across the whole partnership
rather than just within individual members. That is part of the
evolution that I think we should be pushing forward to ensure
that our space activities generally remain fit for the future.
Q183 Dr Iddon: When we had Piers
Sellers in front of us a few weeks ago, before Christmas, and
five of the seven crew which returned in July last year, we challenged
them on robotic exploration of space versus manned exploration
of space, and they were quite adamant that the only way forward
is to explore space using human beings. I mentioned to the earlier
group of witnesses that the science minister seems to be thinking
that we have to keep an eye on manned exploration of space. What
is the attitude of the three witnesses before us now?
Professor Mason: My attitude is
clear: I think Piers Sellers would agree that what is actually
required is a partnership between manned and robotic exploration.
There are places where robots will do a better job, there are
places where humans might do a better job. As has been rehearsed
in the previous session, the UK currently does not have an involvement
in manned space flight, and I think that was probably the right
decision to have been made historically, in terms of not getting
involved in the international space station, etc. I think history
has demonstrated that was probably the right thing for the UK
to have done at the time, but we need to keep an open mind for
the future. The way I look at it, if in 20 years' time there is
a reliable and sustainable infrastructure on the moon, for example,
then in order to be doing the sort of science that the UK is currently
strong in we would probably want to be involved in that. We have
to at least examine that question with an open mind and plan our
future accordingly. As Dave was saying earlier, we do not have
to make a decision in the next five years but we should certainly
be looking at the distant future, or the not-so-distant future—2020
is not that far away—and saying: "Where do we want
to be positioned at that time?" We are already getting involved
in the global exploration strategy and currently we are emphasising
our skills in robotics and small satellites, which is exactly
the right thing to do. There are huge scientific and technical
opportunities, huge commercial opportunities, and some of those
might well involve human access in the future. We should maintain
an open mind.
Q184 Dr Iddon: We have been talking
about the current budget. If we made that important decision to
get into manned exploration, how would that budget change? Would
it double, would it treble? It is pretty costly to put people
up there.
Professor Mason: This is one of
the things we have to examine, and, of course, there is a cost-benefit
analysis. It is more of a graded scale than, perhaps, people realise,
and provided one works in partnership with, for example, our European
partners in ESA or within a bilateral relationship with NASA the
costs need not be unaffordable. Certainly the budget will need
to go up from what it is now, by perhaps a factor of two, not
factors of ten.
Q185 Dr Iddon: You have heard what
the previous set of witnesses said about launchers. We can carry
on buying space from other nations. What is your view? Should
we get back into launcher technology or not?
Professor Mason: Launcher technology
is one of these very exciting areas. Certainly what interests
me, particularly, is small-scale launchers and marrying that with
our small satellite industry, which we are very strong in. There
is a growing and burgeoning private market in small-scale launchers,
and you will be aware of efforts around the world to develop such
things by private companies, essentially. In the very near future
we will find a very healthy market for our needs and I agree with
previous panel members that I do not think we need to lose too
much sleep about not being in the launcher business currently.
Q186 Chairman: Before we move on
to Adam, can I ask you, Air Vice-Marshal, whether you have any
comments about manned space flight and launchers.
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: I am happy
to make a couple of general comments, Mr Chairman. First of all,
we recognise the importance of space to defence. Some commentators
have suggested that 90% of defence capability is supported from
space, be that in communications or data transmission, and if
you look at reliance on precision navigation and timing, and so
on and so forth. So we have a very keen interest in where space
is going. Particularly, as an airman, I see space through the
prism of air power, and an extension of air power's capability
beyond the upper atmosphere into space. In terms of the question
you asked earlier, Doctor, on what contribution partners can make
to the BNSC, and what the MoD brings, I think Professor Mason
has already pointed out the benefits of the technology needed
in looking at space. We see that very much at the MoD end; we
are looking all the time at disruptive technology and how actually
we can exploit disruptive technology for the benefits of defence.
We see there are a lot of exciting programmes in space that we
would like to be at the front end of. So being a member of the
board allows me to see the context of where space in general is
moving inside the UK, and where we can find areas to work together.
We have a number of people embedded within the BNSC: the head
of technology, for example, is an MoD scientist. So we have a
very close relationship and understanding of where that technology
is going. In terms of what we could do in terms of strengthening
the general UK policy on space, I think the contribution the MoD
would like to make is we have worked quite carefully over the
last year to craft our own policy and strategy in space and where
we would like to see it going, and we have a number of key areas,
which I would be happy to explain a little later—
Q187 Chairman: The specific question
to you was: do you have a comment about manned space flight and
launchers?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: In terms
of the other contribution we would like to make, it is: are there
parts of the UK science and technology we think we can exploit?
One of the areas that has already been mentioned is the area of
small satellite technology, and we are very keen to stay alongside
the small satellite program and perhaps see how we can grow it.
We have been involved in the TOPSAT programme and we are looking
as well to see how we might develop from that. Allied with the
small satellite programme, of course, is the question of a launcher,
and at this stage we do not have a firm plan to be involved in
a launcher but we would very much like to explore a dialogue with
industry, and others, to see how we could develop a low-cost launcher
system. We are very aware of what is happening inside the United
States, and what various entrepreneurs are doing there, and there
may well be an opportunity here for industry to get together to
exploit not just a UK market but a global market.
Q188 Adam Afriyie: Would the MoD
like to see manned space flight? Would that be useful to you?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: In terms
of the manned space flight question, of course, the first things
that excites people like myself, as an airman, is that it attracts
people's attention, excites people about space and takes them
forward. I cannot see, at this stage, a direct military application
of having a man in space, but certainly we would be very keen
to be involved in understanding that space programme, and the
science that comes with it, and the potential benefit that might
accrue.
Q189 Chairman: Before giving you
back to Adam, I would like an answer from you on launchers. Are
you saying on behalf of the MoD that the MoD is perfectly happy
not to have any launch capability whatsoever in terms of putting
military satellites into space?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: Mr Chairman,
at the moment, the MoD's—
Q190 Chairman: Is it yes or no?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: The MoD's
aim is to achieve assured access to space, and at the moment we
achieve that from a number of mechanisms. We see the benefits
though, and we get that from other partners, as you know, not
directly from MoD systems.
Q191 Chairman: I would like you to
answer the question I am putting to you.
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: We do
see the benefits of a potential, low-cost launcher to help support
a low-cost small satellite.
Q192 Adam Afriyie: The boundary between
civil and military space programmes is often fairly blurred; we
had the analogy earlier about the dual use of satellites, so you
may be using GPS for military purposes as well as GPS for civil
purposes. We have heard that the MoD's involvement in BNSC is
fairly low, both in financial terms and in commitment terms. Is
that a fair assessment, given that there is a very pressing need
for military and civil satellite space programmes to be combined
in some way?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: I would
come back to an answer I gave earlier, which was that our aim
is to make sure we have assumed access to space. We have, as you
know, a very special relationship with the United States, which
delivers most of our space-based products, but we do believe there
are some areas—certainly disruptive technology and a responsive
space capability—that we are keen to get involved in. Where
there are sensible investments we can make in small satellite
technology, particularly, we are keen to look at that issue.
Q193 Adam Afriyie: So you are comfortable
with a little bit of blurring of the lines, as they exist at the
moment? I think BNSC were fairly clear in saying that whilst you
could not outlaw somebody on a military operation using civil
GPS, actually, conceptually, the MoD should not be doing that.
Professor Mason: I think the issue
there, just to add a bit of clarity, is that we do not want military
applications driving the design of assets for civilian use. That
is the real nub of the issue.
Q194 Adam Afriyie: Would you be comfortable
with that, or would you prefer to have the military driving some
of the design, especially when you mention it would be helpful
to have a low-cost launch capability, and something else you just
mentioned about a great benefit from the use of space for military
purposes?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: Our specific
interest in this, as you recognise, is in precision navigation.
At the moment, the MoD's precision navigation requirements, both
now and as we see it in the foreseeable future, are provided by
GPS. What is important from a military perspective is that we
can secure our access to precision navigation for the future,
and we need to ensure that other people do not deny that capability.
I recognise myself that as technology develops the quality of
precision navigation in the civil market will increase, and therefore
there may well be a point in future where some of the civil navigation
systems could be used for broad-based military applications, but
there is always going to be a military requirement for a more
precise system, and in fact we need to be able to secure that
precise system in the future and ensure that it is not blocked
in any way, shape or form.
Q195 Adam Afriyie: Before I come
to Richard, it seems that we are very dependent on the US for
a lot of our military space support. Do you think that dual-use
satellites, a review of the way the BNSC works, and a greater
blurring of the lines, if you like, between driving research space
programmes for military ends would be beneficial to reduce that
dependency?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: I would
go back to Professor Mason's point that it is important that you
start off with a clear distinction between the two. What I would
say, as a military man, though, is if there is a civil system
out there which has a military application then, in the future,
we would be amiss not to take that.
Professor Holdaway: I just want
to make the point that one of the key issues is the dual use of
technology between the civil programme and the military programme.
Of course, there is an extremely good example of that over the
last two years, which is the MOSAIC TOPSAT programme, which used
a small satellite, developed at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
for a world-leading, very small, compact camera[1]
but for being able to see higher resolution images of the ground.
That was a programme run jointly by the DTI and the Ministry of
Defence making really good use of technology on both sides. Of
course, that then has led to the spin-out of a high-tech company,
which is just about to be sold to a multinational company. So
you see the food chain from small amounts of seed corn funding
right through to wealth creation through spin out.
Q196 Adam Afriyie: How effective
has the TOPSAT surveillance programme been?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: So far,
it has been a success with a successful launch and we have had
a successful receipt of images. We are going through a process
now of evaluating just how successful that has been, and we have
already started a dialogue inside the MoD as to what we might
want to do beyond the TOPSAT programme. We might develop a radar
sensor capability.
Q197 Adam Afriyie: So it has been
a good experience and it looks like you may be pursuing that.
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: It has
been a good experience and we would like to try and explore further,
building on that capability.
Q198 Chairman: Just to finish with
this, Air Vice-Marshal, do you accept that the MoD's involvement
in space is fairly low in financial terms and in commitment terms
to the British space industry? Is that a fair comment?
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: It is
a fair comment in the context, Mr Chairman, that the MoD has significant
access to space and space-based capabilities, and we achieve that
at a relatively low cost. There are some niche capabilities we
think we would like to exploit, and in that context, yes, our
investment is low but, as we see the benefits, that could increase
in the future.[2]
Q199 Chairman: Your comment to Adam
Afriyie in terms of the dual use of technology, it seems to me—and
correct me if I am wrong—you will use it provided somebody
else provides it.
Air Vice-Marshal Moran: I come
back to what our aim is; to gain assured access to space-based
capability.
1 Note by the witness: It was the camera that
was developed at RAL, not the satellite. I guess my statement
was ambiguous. Back
2
Note by the witness: This answer focuses on the MoD's
investment on capabilities currently provided through a relationship
with the US. The MoD has made a significant investment in the
SKYNET programme to provide communication and data transmission
series and through the Met Office invests in EUMETSAT. Refer to
the MoD's written evidence. Back
| 
